sportsbet_results_competitions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only describes the functional output and does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, required authentication, data freshness, or side effects. Key transparency is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second shows the return structure. Front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 2 required parameters with no schema descriptions, and no output schema. The description includes the return structure but fails to explain the parameters or provide usage context. Given the complexity of retrieving results, this is incomplete and would hinder correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description does not explain what classId represents or what date format is expected. It adds no meaning beyond the property names and types, leaving the agent guessing about valid inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool returns competitions with results for a sport class on a specific date, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('competitions with results'). The included return structure further clarifies the output. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sportsbet_competition_matches or sportsbet_sport_resulted_events.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage: to get results of competitions on a date. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like sportsbet_sport_resulted_events or sportsbet_competition_matches. No exclusion criteria or context signals are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.